The American people have spoken and, in my view, have spoken decisively in choosing Donald Trump as their 47th president. Trump’s victory has come as a shock to many, while others are saying that it was expected. But many analysts who were moved by, what they saw as, the flawless roll out of the Harris-Walz campaign are now questioning campaign strategy and many who were dismissive of Trump’s antics and tactics are now wondering about how he could have been so effective.
There will be unending analysis of this outcome for decades to come and no one opinion piece can cover all the issues. There are possibly several factors which explain the outcomes of the elections. I will discuss two (2), [from a list of ten 10] which I believe are mostly responsible.
There will be unending analysis of this outcome for decades to come and no one opinion piece can cover all the issues. There are possibly several factors which explain the outcomes of the elections. I will discuss two (2), [from a list of ten 10] which I believe are mostly responsible.
- White superiority / supremacy
In several campaign rallies in September and October, Trump said something which was as racial in its tone as much as it connected with the views and tastes of many. Trump asserted that he had the “nicest white skin” and that he would be “sunbathing his beautiful beach body…if he wasn’t running for president”.
Contrary to what many people think, Trump is very skilled at tapping into the sentiments of the electorate and making statements which appeal to their tastes. He had also described Biden (a white man) as becoming intellectually impaired due to age but insisted that Harris was born intellectually impaired. In furtherance of his disdain for Harris (though he has shown disdain for others – male and female) he would continuously attack her looks and her race.
It is also to be recalled that he complained that immigrants, some from “shit hole” countries were poisoning the blood of “pure whites”, and (during his first presidency) lamented the fact that people from Scandinavian countries (who are predominantly white) were not the ones migrating to America. Condemnation of Trump’s white superiority / supremacy comments was never widespread. Condemnation came mainly from left-leaning liberals.
It is also to be recalled that he complained that immigrants, some from “shit hole” countries were poisoning the blood of “pure whites”, and (during his first presidency) lamented the fact that people from Scandinavian countries (who are predominantly white) were not the ones migrating to America. Condemnation of Trump’s white superiority / supremacy comments was never widespread. Condemnation came mainly from left-leaning liberals.
The question is: why would Trump emphasize that he is white and make whiteness appear to be a superior condition? I think the answer is simple. He knew that many, if not most, Americans (both whites and non-whites) view whiteness as superior. Trump knows what appeals to his base, though it is the case that even if his base is unhappy with him, they will still support him.
A Racial Contract
The late Jamaican American philosopher and social activist Charles Mills, provides a compelling case of what he believes largely explains the American psyche, one which I believe also explains the results of the 2024 American presidential contest, and thus one which helps in making sense of the illustrations above. His bestselling book, The Racial Contract, shows that race is at the centre of interactions between whites (who are typically the largest owners of the media and money) and non-whites, in western society.
Mills argues that perspectives of earlier philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and John Locke (1632 – 1704) who presented the “social contract” as a race and ethnicity neutral construct, were illustrative of an incomplete characterization of relations among groups in society and constituted what he called “ideal theory”. Mills contends that if the “social contract”, (which ostensibly regulates – to some degree – the relationship between government and citizens, as well as among groups in society), were a universally applied standard that functioned for the benefit of all, then the acts of blatant racism, inequality, procedural injustice, and denial of opportunity, would not affect minority (non-white) groups so disproportionately. If the “social contract” were operative, non-white groups which are aggrieved would have means by which they could enforce their rights under the social contract. Thus, Mills contends that that the idea of a social contract reflects “ideal” theory.
Mills contends that if the “social contract”, (which ostensibly regulates – to some degree – the relationship between government and citizens, as well as among groups in society), were a universally applied standard that functioned for the benefit of all, then the acts of blatant racism, inequality, procedural injustice, and denial of opportunity, would not affect minority (non-white) groups so disproportionately.
Mills posits, therefore, what he calls a “non-ideal theory” which he thinks better explains the relationship between whites and non-whites, particularly in western societies. He calls this the racial contract. Under the racial contract, the superiority of whites is assumed and, as envisioned in Plato’s Republic, ethnic or social groups in society had assigned places. According to Mills, the racial contract is both formal and informal and under this contract, whites were / are permitted to exploit non-whites and enjoy white privilege. White privilege includes having access to better schools, being treated differently by law enforcement, and generally enjoying a better quality of life than non-whites.
The state of being white then, is seen as a state of superiority, and from this mindset or worldview emerges the political system of white supremacy emerges, Mills contends. In this state of an assumption of the justification of the superiority of whiteness, laws are made which distinctly privilege whites and, in many cases, harm non-whites.
The state of being white then, is seen as a state of superiority, and from this mindset or worldview emerges the political system of white supremacy emerges, Mills contends. In this state of an assumption of the justification of the superiority of whiteness, laws are made which distinctly privilege whites and, in many cases, harm non-whites.
That a black man was elected president a decade and a half ago, is described by some as an experiment, and the presidency of Barack Obama did little, if anything, to alter the fundamental inequalities and asymmetries of American society rooted in the belief that whites are superior to non-whites.
Does misconduct disqualify
Trump inspired a mob to attack the nation on January 6, 2021, he violated the laws concerning the handling of records, he has had two impeachments, 91 felony charges, 34 felony convictions, invited attacks on the media, race-baited the country, and much more. The question is, at what point do these things matter? In 2020 Trump received 41% of the white vote and the same percentage in 2024. Does this mean that white voters are saying that none of what he has done rises to the level that they would withdraw their support?
- Patriarchy
A second explanation for the Trump victory / Harris loss is attributed to patriarchal beliefs among several ethnic groups but which was manifested most among Latinos. Latinos are predominantly Catholics. A 2023 report from the Pew Research Centre shows that among US Latinos, Catholicism, although on the decline, is still the largest denominational affiliation among Latinos. Several sources affirm that male dominance as a cultural disposition is strong among Latinos.
Against this backdrop, the significant decline in Latino support for the Democratic female candidate, Harris, in 2024 must be assessed alongside the fact that in 2008, it was a historic Latino turnout which helped to elect Obama. In that historic year, nearly eleven million Latinos voted of which 67% voted for Obama. In 2012, the Latino vote for Obama grew to 71%, one percentage point below the record achieved by Bill Clinton in 1996.
The Latino vote was again crucial to a Democratic win in 2020, when Biden secured 59% of the votes to Trump’s 39% in the crucial voting category called “swing states”, and 62% overall across all states. In 2024 Harris earned 53% of the Latino vote, a drop of 9 percentage points when compared to Biden in 2020, while Trump’s share rose by between 6 and 13 percentage points, depending on the exit poll data consulted.
Many analysts attribute the Latino turn to Trump to be outrage over the high cost of food and housing. Trump’s Hispanic vote percentage beat the previous record, set by George W. Bush’s in 2004, when Bush won as much as 44% of the Hispanic vote.
Pocketbook or Patriarchy
Some analysts suggest that it was economic considerations and anger towards the Biden administration which led to the massive drop in the Latino support for Democrats. One cannot absolutely rule out the contribution of any factor, but I posit that patriarchal worldviews took precedence over pocketbook concerns. This is not to say that pocketbook issues were not real for Latinos (as they were for most other groups), but the Biden administration provided substantial economic cushion for Latinos and other struggling citizens.
Then there are those who say Democrats have for a long time taken the Latino vote for granted. While this may be so, the factor of patriarchy looms even larger when one considers that in 2016, after Obama had received 67% and 71%, respectively of Latino votes in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton received a mere 48%. But in 2020 when a (white) male was on the ballot for the Dems, that support shot back up, reaching 59%.
Thus, the comparison of Latino support for male versus female democratic candidates shows a distinct favouring of males over females. Is this attributable to the Latinos, by and large, being cultured / socialized into having a patriarchal worldview?
Across the general demographic of males, the data show that in 2020, Trump’s share of the male vote was 49% (with Biden’s at 48%) but in 2024 Trump’s share shot up to 55%. Is this evidence of a patriarchal mindset? For with Trump’s policy positions being planned deportations of immigrants, tariffs, cuts to social security, and comparatively less robust economic management than Biden, one has to ask, what makes Trump more attractive?
Canute Thompson is Professor of Educational Policy, Planning and Leadership, Pro Vice-Chancellor – Undergraduate Studies and Director of the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, a social activist, and author of eight books and twenty journal articles.
Professor Thompson has earned several awards. Among them, are eight UWI Mona Campus Principal’s Award – two for Best Publication (Article Category) in 2019 and in 2020 for his book, ‘Reimagining Educational Leadership in the Caribbean’; three for Most Outstanding Researcher (2020, 2021, and 2024); two in 2023 on behalf of the CCEP – for Research Activity generating the most funds and Research with the most Development Impact, and one in 2024 for Research Activity generating the most funds. In 2022 he was awarded a bronze medal in the Independent Publishers’ Book Awards, for his 2020 book, Education and Development: Policy Imperatives for Jamaica and the Caribbean.
I support the two elements presented in the analysis. However the third that I would to the top tier for impacting the results is the uses social media and new media with special mention to the role of Elon Musk’s manipulation of “X” in ‘colting the game’.
I agree that social media played a role in Trump’s victory